Category: Marxism/Cultural Marxism

“Increasingly the younger generation of theologians is being infiltrated by socialism. God’s saving purpose and eternal redemption in Jesus Christ are replaced by human goals of world improvement. These goals are veiled in arbitrarily selected words of the so-called ‘historical Jesus,’ who is interpreted as social reformer or as revolutionary, depending on what the interpreter desires. Preferred texts include the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) and the discourse on world judgment (Matthew 25:31-46), as well as Jesus’ words regarding the Sabbath (Mark 2:27-28). In the last passage the term son of man in verse 28 is taken to simply mean man, which is linguistically possible. Jesus table fellowship with tax collectors and sinners (e.g. — Mark 2:15-17) is taken as proof that he changed unjust social structures and that we should imitate him in this.

Characteristic of this approach is the theory of projection. (We might call this ‘social constructs’ — BLM.) The Old Testament is, for the most part, set aside as irrelevant to us because it is, entirely or in part, merely an intellectual construction, a projection. It is the result of then-current patriarchal social structures and conditions. According to this theory, even the ten commandments are no longer normative for us. Jesus is said to have abolished them with the commandment to love. But what love means is not derived from God’s Word, but is rather determined by sensual means.

The prophets are ranked as social reformers. Amos serves as an alibi for this.”

“The small and powerless minorities which struggle against the false consciousness and its beneficiaries must be helped. Their continued existence is more important than the preservation of abused rights and liberties which grant constitutional power to those who oppress these minorities.”

Herbert Marcuse Frankfurt School

This “false consciousness,” which one of the truly great Cultural Marxists railed against was the consciousness which has been shaped and formed by thousands of years of Christianity upon the West. It was this “false consciousness” that Marcuse and his cohorts at the Frankfurt School desired to overthrow and so the oppressed must be protected from this “false consciousness” even if it meant denying the proper protection of law to those who were designed as the “oppressors.” In this quote Marcuse is styling his worldview and beliefs as the true consciousness vis-a-vis the false consciousness that he and his ideological soul mates were waging civilizational war against.

This false consciousness would be overthrown by use of the tool-kit developed by the Cultural Marxists. These tools came to be known as,

1.) Critical theory

In Cultural Marxism via the work of critical theory, every aspect of a person’s identity is to be questioned, be it gender, sexual orientation, family, race, culture, religion, in order to benefit supposedly oppressed groups. By deconstructing heretofore stable and unchanging identity social categories (part of the false consciousness problem) those who were part of moral, ethnic, racial, and religious minority groups could pull down and destroy the whole idea of norms that arise in cultures that are comprised of distinct majorities.

The underlying and enduring aspect of critical theory common to all its multitudinous expressions is the creation and application of interdisciplinary theories growing out of a worldview dedicated to overturning the false consciousness of traditional Christian thought and social order and so serving as an instrument of social transformation. Critical theory comes in all shapes, sizes, and expressions but the one thing it has in common is criticizing any residual influence of Christianity that remains on any and all of our Western institutions and disciplines. It typically expresses itself as the voice of the oppressed and the aggrieved and in doing so seeks to employ “social justice” and “fairness” as the sting within the theory. However, in order to do so Critical theory must invert and redefine almost all realities in order to be able to secure the superior position of the oppressed.

2.) The New Proletariat

The Cultural Marxists empirically observed that Marxism, in its classical expression, failed when it posited that there was automatic friction between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Because of this observation, the Cultural Marxists understood that if the West was going to be a cake turned then what was required was the creation of both a new model and a new proletariat that would serve the purpose of providing the necessary friction and manpower in order to achieve Marxist transformation.

The Cultural Marxist finally conceived of both new model and new proletariat when it changed the old class model of have vs. have not to the new model of oppressor vs. oppressed. The oppressed was thus to the agenda of Cultural Marxism what the working class proletariat was to the agenda of Classical Marxism. Just as in Classical Marxism there remained the sense of grievance in this new proletariat but instead of the grievance being based on an economic pivot Cultural Marxism chose the pivot of the unprivileged oppressed outcast as the tool by which to achieve social transformation in a Marxist direction. Having chosen that pivot it then worked to propagandize a large number of groups that they were both oppressed and that their identity as humans should be tied up with their oppression.

Concretely speaking, the new Cultural Marxist proletariat — those who would do the yeoman work of the cultural Marxist march through the Institutions — would be comprised of all who would believe the critical theory propaganda that they were underprivileged and oppressed. Those successfully propagandized and recruited were feminists, ethnic minorities, and the sexually deviant. These were the new proletariat oppressed and they would fight against the new bourgeoisie who were cast as the oppressors. The new bourgeoisie were cast as Christian patriarchy, Heterosexual Married, the white majority (especially white males), people who insist that gender is binary (CIS-gender), and most emphatically Christians who rejected this Cultural Marxist social construct template. Ironically the new social construct that the cultural Marxist created used as one of its chief tools for social transformation the idea that previous normativity itself was merely social construct. In the cultural Marxist world, the oppressors were successful as oppressors because they had managed to force their social constructs on the oppressed. The work of the critical theory was to expose these putative social constructs for what they were.

3.) Shaming

In order of this to happen then, the previous normativity must be shamed and countered by the recruitment and so rise of a new normativity. For example, heterosexual marriage must be challenged by other forms of sexuality as mainstreamed into the social order. For example, since whites are oppressor then new slogans like “diversity is our strength,” as combined with immigration policies which will decrease the overall percentage total of whites must be pursued. For example, if patriarchy is oppressive then matriarchy and anarchy is the solution. For example, if CIS-gender is merely a dominant social construct then transgenderism must be injected into the blood stream of the West. For example if Christianity is oppressive then a two pronged approach must be employed. First, Christianity must be emptied of its previous content and filled with the ideology of Cultural Marxism as its new content and second, those Christians who refuse to be re-programmed must be marginalized and diluted by bringing in teeming numbers of Muslim immigrants.

The ground for all this was set by Theodore Adorno’s book “The Authoritarian Personality,” wherein Adorno patholigizes what had always been considered normative. By the time Adorno is finished patriarchy, patriotism, familialism, and the Christian faith are all given the bum’s rush and characterized as signs of sickness. Of course the consequence of this, if taken seriously, is a social order that is rootless, international, alienated, and godless. These are the very characteristics which are descriptive of the West as a result of the canker that is cultural Marxism.

The ground being set, the Cultural Marxist advance is made by use of the technique of shaming. Shaming occurs when labels are affixed to people for perfectly normal behavior. For example, if one is white and desirous of living in a homogeneous neighborhood or attend a homogeneous church one is shamed with catcalls of “racist,” or “Islamaphobe,” or “homophobe,” or “Un-Christian.” However when large influxes of differing people groups are relocated into Western cities (Lewiston, Maine comes to mind) with the natural result that these groups create their own sub-culture where homogeneity is characteristic this is called the benefit of multiculturalism. Shaming is saved for the majority White Christian. Normativity is reserved for the alien and the stranger.

4.) Political Correctness

A further tool for the advance of Cultural Marxism is the tool of Political correctness. Political correctness has many expressions but we will consider its use as a tool of thought control by way of linguistic manipulation. Political correctness controls thought by creating taboos in speech usage as enforced via social stigmatization. Words that cannot be said become words that will not be thought. This thought control is ubiquitous on American campuses today as riots ensure when certain speech is to be expressed. The recent riots on University campuses against Charles Murray and before him Milo Yiannopoulos provide proof.

This thought control is also achieved by seeking to control the language by scandalizing language that does not serve the purposes of the Cultural Marxist. Examples of this abound. Most recently the phrase “anchor baby” created a firestorm. The Cultural Marxists insisted that this was a pejorative. However, it is only a pejorative if you assume their worldview. By insisting that this phrase dare not be uttered the Cultural Marxists were advancing their agenda and their worldview. Instead they began to insist that the phrased, “citizen children of unauthorized immigrants” be used in its place. But of course, the very issue up for debate is whether such children should be citizens. By using their language they win the debate. Another example is “illegal immigrant.” Despite the fact that those immigrants which are here illegally are indeed, by definition, “illegal immigrants,” the Cultural Marxists demand that these people be referred to as “undocumented workers.” Such language advances their worldview and agenda. Control the language, control the thinking. Control the language and the thinking control the outcome. One more example will suffice. What we today call “affirmative action,” is the triumph of political correctness. “Affirmative action,” is in reality ethnic discrimination but many can’t see that because of the thought control achieved by our cultural mind masters.

In the end Cultural Marxism as an ideology has as a goal the elimination of all stigmatization except the stigmatization of those who believe that stigmatism has a proper and necessary role in any social order. In the Cultural Marxist world oppressed and oppressor categories will eliminated with the consequence that stigma will be ended. The pedophile and tranny will be just as normal as the heterosexual and the Christian. In reality what will happen is that God’s normal will be stigmatized and maybe even criminalized.

Future article — The role of false guilt and liberation theology in Cultural Marxism.

When we take matters like this seriously we have already lost the battle.

The male transgender lawyer is dressed here like a woman complete with blond wig, makeup, jewelry, etc.. Carlson and the Lawyer are having a serious conversation about what it takes to be officially Transgender.

I was getting sucked into the conversation when all of a sudden I start cracking up laughing from realizing how absurd this whole interview is.

I thought … “when we don’t howl in peals of laughter over the absurdity of all this we’ve already lost the battle. Taking any of it seriously means they win.”

In the past, in Ecclesiastic meetings, I’ve warned people about the danger wrapped up in having serious conversations about the absurd. I didn’t mean then and I don’t mean now that we shouldn’t debate about the perverse or about the perverted. Neither do I believe that we should not talk to them but if and when we do so it should be accompanied by belly laughs on our part during the conversation.

“We are an inclusive community that loves and embraces one another despite differences of political persuasion, race, gender, nationality, immigration status, or any other characteristic that people have used to foster division, suspicion, and strife. While some in our community feel better about the future, others in our community feel less safe, more vulnerable, less included today than they did yesterday. Let us affirm together that IWU loves and embraces our minority students and staff, those who come from immigrant families, those who are international students, or those who identify with some other group of people who feel vulnerable and pushed to the margins. I would ask all members of our community to remember and practice those values and virtues of Godly hospitality that represent the very best of what our Lord Jesus Christ taught us.”

Dr. David Wright
President — Indiana Wesleyan University

1.) “We are an inclusive community that loves and embraces one another despite differences of political persuasion, race, gender, nationality, immigration status, or any other characteristic that people have used to foster division, suspicion, and strife.”

IWU Alumni, Rev. McAtee inquires,

Dear President Wright,

What does “any other characteristic that people have used to foster division, suspicion, and strife” mean? In our current climate the characteristic most used, as alleged by the sodomite community, to foster division is heterosexuality vs. sodomy or heterosexuality vs. Transgenderism. Is it your opinion Dr. Wright that CIS Christians who insist that Heterosexuality is normative Christian behavior are fostering division suspicion and strife vis-a-vis the LGBTQ community?

A clarification is in order I think sir.

2.) “IWU loves and embraces … those who identify with some other group of people who feel vulnerable and pushed to the margins.”

Now who else could the IWU President, Dr. David Wright be referring to except those now commonly referred to as the LGBQT community? Let’s just ask the question directly of IWU President, David Wright;

“Sir is it your intent to lead IWU to “love and embrace” the LGBQT community and if it is your intent what does that exactly mean?

3.) In light of how President Dr. David Wright folded on the Indiana RFRA these questions present themselves even more obviously. Now combine this with the recent 1st annual Indiana Wesleyan University “Multi-cultural Day” and it is clear that Indiana Wesleyan University needs to respond to clarify where exactly Indiana Wesleyan is on these issues. Also, as the Wesleyan church is so tied at the hip with IWU it might be profitable if the denomination would give their Alumni a statement on their position regarding the sin of aberrant sexuality.

b.) Are we to understand that Typhoid Mary, Ebola Jane and TB Ted though hidden and shunned in the past are welcome at IWU?

Are we to understand that serial killers, though pushed to the margins of society, are welcome at IWU?

How about pedophiles who are still somewhat pushed to the margins and so vulnerable? Are they welcome at IWU?

A note of clarification is in order.

3.) Dr. Wright asks,

I would ask all members of our community to remember and practice those values and virtues of Godly hospitality that represent the very best of what our Lord Jesus Christ taught us.”

But the very best of what the Lord Jesus Christ taught us includes what we find in I John,

I John 2:9 — Anyone who runs ahead without remaining in the teaching of Christ does not have God. Whoever remains in His teaching has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you but does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your home or even greet him. 11Whoever greets such a person shares in his evil deeds.

Will Dr. Wright not receive or greet those who do not remain in the teaching of Christ? Does Dr. Wright understand that this “not receiving” is also the essence of Christian hospitality? Scripture does not call us to be hospitable to those who would use that hospitality to tear down the house of Christ.

In a Carlos Slim majority owned New York Times Editorial board op-ed piece the “Gray Lady,” demonstrated her resolve to be anything but a whiter shade of pale.

In a piece villainizing the Trump administration for enforcing the law as it pertains to illegal immigrants the “Paper of Record,” editorialized,

“Where could the demonizing and dehumanizing of the foreign born lead but to a whiter America?”

And all the Cultural Marxists said, “AMEN.”

By all that is just and true the last thing we can have is an America that was 90% white as it was when I was born. A Whiter America? The Times seems to think that would be a descent into Dante’s Hell.

This comment demonstrates that the Times is owned by the Cultural Marxists and is pursuing the ideological pretensions of the Frankfurt School. The concern of the Times and the left is only about the foreign born inasmuch as the presence of the foreign-born here yields to them the capacity to pursue the browning of America and so the destruction of the white man. There is a goal here and that goal is to subjugate and perhaps even eliminate America’s founding White Anglo-Saxon Christian stock.

People have need to remember that in the ideology of Cultural Marxism there was the understanding that a new proletariat had to be built to replace the failed proletariat that was the “working class.” The working class, in the Marxist paradigm, had failed in bringing in the new Communist man because the working class had shown themselves corruptible to the bourgeoisie promise of upward mobility. A new proletariat must be built up in order to overthrow the Christian bourgeoisie and that new Cultural Marxist proletariat would be comprised of the feminists, the perverts, and the minority as each and all were propagandized into believing that the Christian white man had victimized and abused them. This new proletariat would be the rank and file shock troops who would be the ones who would perform the “long march through the institutions,” in order to defeat the Christian West.

The New York Times rightly understands that the Trump administration’s putative resolve to enforce the law against illegal immigrants is an attack on their new proletariat Marxist political base. If there are fewer minorities in America there are fewer people who have been propagandized into the Cultural Marxist cause to overturn what made the West, the West.

The goal in all of this is to be able to produce Tourist pamphlet guides for the new America that say, to paraphrase Garrison Keilor,

Welcome to America, where all the women are feminists, all the men are effeminate, and all the children are no longer white.

Chateau Heartiste, in an article on the same subject closed by offering this observation,

“As a White man, I sense that war has been declared on me and my kind. When my enemies bring war to my doorstep, what am I to do? Welcome their bayonets to my chest? Whine about how totally not racist I am as the enemy levels its guns at my head?”

I would only add to this that the goal for destruction is not primarily the white man. The white man is only secondarily in the sites of the Cultural Marxists. The primary target of the New York Times and all Cultural Marxists is the Christian faith. The White man merely becomes the primary target because the white man has been for centuries the Typhoid Mary of the Christian faith. Eliminate the White man and one eliminates, on a civilizational scale, the Christian faith.

Posts navigation

Search

Search for:

MY orders are to fight; Then if I bleed, or fail, Or strongly win, what matters it? God only doth prevail. The servant craveth naught, Except to serve with might. I was not told to win or lose, – My orders are to fight. ~ Ethelwyn Wetherald

This website is a service to God's Kingdom people. If you would like the opportunity to tithe or give to this ministry I would be glad to be yoked to your support. If you cannot give, I am glad that you can profit from what is written here.